Constitutional Convention (Monday, March 29, 2004)
«Previous Page · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 · Next Page»
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION:
Civilly, we are saying to people that we want to give you all the rights and benefits but we don’t want to call them equal. To permanently write in to the Constitution second-class citizenship is wrong. I have been critical of the SJC. But pushing this question into the middle, I am confident that the voters in my district will see through this question. There is a very real distinction- many in the gay and lesbian community raise this point. Here is a good reason to switch your vote. If you pass this, you segregate a group and denied them the right to advance their rights in federal court. You are saying they cannot challenge federal DOMA. That is a major distinction. We could get to the same outcome. We could get rid of the next two years. Let’s do this like the Legislature we are. Let us not put out a meaningless question and pretend the voters are too stupid to understand.
Sen. Creem our Constitution is the legacy of the great John
Adams. The happiness of the individual is the end of man. Ease, comfort or
security to the greatest number of persons is the best. What course today will guarantee
the greatest amount of happiness to the most people? Allowing all people to
marry is the best course of society. It will help adopted kids. Forty percent
of adoptions in the Probate Court today are to gay couples. So many facets of
the law are affected by marriage. Civil marriage. What course of action today
will grant the greatest ease, comfort, security and happiness to the most
people? Should we forbid protections for some people? I believe there is only
one answer. People who want to be married should be allowed to marry as quickly
as the law will permit. Thank God
Rep. Swan said I rise to oppose this amendment. It has been said that some of us are waiting for an opportunity to vote against this – in my case you were correct. You were absolutely correct. I have been waiting for an opportunity not to amend our Constitution. I oppose this amendment. When we have John Adams drafting our Constitution, let us look over their shoulders as they finalize their work. Let us think of the Constitution as a living document that expands rights and responsibilities. I can hear John Adams asking how we should expand the rights of the people. Let us not restrict freedoms. Let is talk about the common good. It is painful for me even to discuss the denial of rights in the Commonwealths. Some have said this is not a civil rights issue, but it is. It is not the black civil rights movement of the 1960s, but this is about rights. And they ought to be color and gender neutral. I have personally borne the burden of separate but equal and it does not feel good. I will not impose that on another citizen. It is wrong to do so. I hope this amendment is rejected. Although I do not agree with the gentleman from Holliston, we should not amend this Constitution to define marriage and take away rights and deny equal protection. Thank you.
«Previous Page · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 · Next Page»